ShareThis Page
Pennsylvania sued over limits on state coverage of abortion | TribLIVE.com
Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania sued over limits on state coverage of abortion

Marc Levy • Associated Press
| Wednesday, January 16, 2019 6:14 p.m
645516_web1_DxEJ4VfUYAATlq6

HARRISBURG — The operators of 15 abortion clinics sued Pennsylvania on Wednesday in a bid to persuade state courts to reverse a decades-old decision upholding limits on the use of state Medicaid dollars to cover abortions.

The lawsuit, filed in Commonwealth Court, seeks an order requiring the state’s Medicaid program to begin covering abortions, without restriction, and contends that Pennsylvania’s 1982 law violates the constitutional equal protection rights of low-income women.

The abortion clinics cite the same state constitutional provisions as the lawsuit decided by the state Supreme Court in 1985. That court upheld Pennsylvania’s ban on the use of state dollars for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

“What’s different is the law’s evolved,” said Susan Frietsche, the senior staff attorney at the Women’s Law Project, a Pennsylvania-based public interest law center. “Other states have gone a different way that makes more sense and we have now got some empirical evidence that we didn’t have in 1985. People have studied what happened to low-income women who are deprived of access to abortion and it is devastating to our lives.”

Pennsylvania’s law is nearly identical to federal limits on the use of federal Medicaid dollars.

Sixteen other states allow public dollars to cover abortions beyond those exceptions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a policy and research organization that supports abortion rights.

Some other states’ courts have ruled that denying Medicaid coverage for abortions is a form of sex discrimination, Frietsche said, while the court’s interpretation of Pennsylvania’s protections against sex discrimination has evolved.

The lawsuit filed Wednesday contends that denying Medicaid coverage of an abortion forces low-income women to put off basic needs to pay for it or carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. Carrying to term against a woman’s will could worsen her pre-existing health conditions or interfere with her job prospects or education, the lawsuit argues.

Gov. Tom Wolf’s office declined comment. Wolf, a Democrat whose administration oversees Pennsylvania’s $31 billion Medicaid program, supports abortion rights.

Leaders of the Legislature’s Republican majorities stayed silent about the lawsuit Wednesday. The state Legislature has voted solidly in favor of anti-abortion legislation in recent years and, given Wolf’s support for abortion rights, it may be up to lawmakers to mount a legal defense of Pennsylvania’s law.

In 1985, as now, the state Supreme Court had a Democratic majority. However, at that time, the entire seven-member high court was all men. Now, it has three women on it.

The court’s 1985 ruling found that the state had a legitimate “interest in preserving potential life” by limiting Medicaid’s coverage of abortions and was not interfering with a woman’s right to an abortion.

It also rejected the argument that the limits violated a constitution provision protecting equal rights on the basis of sex, saying that “there are certain laws which necessarily will only affect one sex.”

Categories: News | Pennsylvania
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.